Every major exchange supports Bitcoin Cash. How does this

>>2899334
As soon as one major exchange decided to recognize BCC, the rest of them had to follow-suit to avoid a mass exodus of capital.

Simple shit.

What people (Americucks, mostly) aren't expecting is the tax implication of the BTC -> BCC split. What happens when you're granted property that's worth $1400/each and then it suddenly plummets to $5?

Well, you owe taxes on the $1400. You can carry forward $3000/loss each year, but if you've got a big enough BTC holding...

> Sorry buddy

Don't think that the IRS isn't going to be watching this closely. It is their first, significant, opportunity to get a huge chunk of tax revenue from every American holding crypto on exchanges. They won't miss it.

Why do you think Cuckbase isn't recognizing BCC? Put 2 and 2 together.

By support you mean "exchanges are watching with extreme caution the possibility of adding a new altcoin & also potential scam named BCC"? I'm ok with it.

bcc is a huge fucking meme so stfu. Nothing is going to happen, it's all fucking bullshit. stop being a bunch of sheep, if you are being a greedy piece of shit for some new bullshit coin "bcc", you are going to lose a lot of money.

>>2899394
THIS, only a retard would keep their BTC on a fucking exchange during Aug 1, no matter what happens this territory is uncharted as fuck and way too risky, it's good that there are greedy people out there willing to serve as red shirts though

exchanges also support legitmate scamcoins like bitbay, espers and xtrabytes

they'd be retarded not to, they want all those fees when people are dumping

>>2899334
Every major exchange supports Ethereum Classic.

Why isn't it's price the same as Ethereum's?

>>2899394
>What people (Americucks, mostly) aren't expecting is the tax implication of the BTC -> BCC split. What happens when you're granted property that's worth $1400/each and then it suddenly plummets to $5?

>Well, you owe taxes on the $1400.


No you don't. You're completely retarded. I'm not realizing any losses or gains in this situation. Fluctuations in my asset values prior to realization is not a taxable event. Just as I wouldn't owe taxes if a stock I hold decides to split and sees a subsequent fluctuation, same goes for Bitcoin.

>>2899394
if i were an americuck, i honestly would never touch crypto

not only could you lose your investment if your coin dips, but you also have to pay tax for it, fuck that

>>2899394
Taxes can only be gathered on actualized gains/losses. So holding BTC/BCC doesn't matter. If someone gives you a $1400 chair and you sell it for $5, you can be taxed on the $5 only. Same applies here

>>2899554
Not true.

IRS treats crypto as property. When you are granted a new coin (like during a hard fork), you are being given new property with a current market value.

You owe taxes upon the receipt of property, not when you sell it.

Here's a helpful guide on how schlonged you are: https://www.irs.gov/uac/newsroom/irs-virtual-currency-guidance

>>2899585
Stocks are property. If I receive a second share from a split I don't owe taxes. I'm not being given new property from this fork. If I own a cow and the cow gives birth I don't owe taxes on the calf.

>>2899652

If you receive a second share from a split there is no change in the value that you possess. If you owned a share of MSFT and they did a split where you received one MSFT and one AMD share, you'd be on the hook for the AMD share.

When BCC drops it will have a value and you will have received property with real value. BTC will not suddenly shit 50% of its value.

You can argue with me all you want, but I know how the IRS is going to look at this. They want their pound of flesh from crypto and anyone using an exchange to collect BCC may very well get boned when the taxman comes.

>>2899698
>but I know how the IRS is going to look at this.

No you fucking don't. If you haven't realized the value of property you aren't going to be taxed on it. If I find a diamond in the streets, I owe nothing to the IRS until I sell it.

>If you owned a share of MSFT and they did a split where you received one MSFT and one AMD share, you'd be on the hook for the AMD share.


You wouldn't until you sold either share. If there's not a realization event you won't be taxed.


There's no way this split could be described to the IRS in a manner that makes them believe a taxable event has occurred to every Bitcoin holder.

>>2899698
>You can argue with me all you want, but I know how the IRS is going to look at this.

so, post the examples of people getting audited who paid taxes only for exchanging crypto to fiat, not for crypto -> crypto transactions

you can't. you only have to pay taxes when you exchange to fiat.
gold/silver/stockmarket shills will try to tell you otherwise, but there isn't a single example of anyone getting burnt

>>2899794
> you only have to pay taxes when you exchange to fiat.

For the sake of clarity, you can owe taxes for events other than converting to fiat. For instance, if you bought a Bitcoin at $1000 and later bought a $300k lambo with it, you'd have $299k in taxable income. Not using fiat or only bartering does not absolve you of tax liabilities, though it might make evading taxes a lot easier.

>>2899334
Bitstamp doesn't

>>2899394
I'll bet if it was BBC that Coinbase would be all over it.

Thick. Solid. Tight.

>supporting segshit

Lmao

>>2899428

Kek how is BitBay a scamcoin

>>2900158
>Big Bitcoin Coin
I mean I would too

File: bbc.jpg (19KB, 294x300px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 294x300px

>>2900190

>>2899334
I can take my current BTC, move it to ViaBTC and sell off BCC for ~$300/coin.

Why shouldn't I do this?

>>2899334
>bitstamp
>not major

>coinbase
>not major

If I sell all my altcoins one minute before the Bitcoin Cash split and then buy them back one minute after the split will I still get Bitcoin Cash?

>>2900571
no, but you will get a splitting headache when you lose all your shit because you're so greedy

>>2900584

If I have a Bitcoin balance at the moment the split happens why wouldn't I get my Bitcoin Cash?

>>2900612
Because it's on an exchange that controls your private keys and doesn't recognize bcc